The height of tolerance is tolerating intolerance.
The height of freedom is the freedom to choose not being free.
Now we can view software freedom as 5 essential freedoms:
Freedom -1: The freedom to run any software you wish.
Freedom 0: The freedom to run that software as you wish.
Freedom 1: The freedom to modify that software as you wish.
Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute that software as you wish.
Freedom 3: The freedom to redistribute your modifications as you wish.
Without "Freedom -1" all the other freedoms are void, and this is why I can't take him seriously if he says that commercial closed-source games shouldn't come to Linux. He's free to choose not to use that software, and we're free to enjoy the heck out of them while he sits in his wheelchair playing GTK+ Minesweeper. I mean, whatever. That's his freedom.
It's good that Steam is coming to Linux - because most of us don't actually care terribly much when it comes to freedom with games. I mean, they're games. If a game gives you freedom to modify the rules then the game breaks down as an international sport. You know, you can't start a football club and then refuse to play anything but a modified version of football. So when RMS goes about advocating free software games, I just don't really care terribly much. For getting work done? For applications? Sure, he's got a great point. For games? Meh.
Where it begins to cross over into problems for me with gaming is DRM. I mean it's one thing we can't modify the executable. That's fine. But when the executable denies me freedom 0, I get a little bit mad, and so do many others. However, Steam doesn't often tend to deny us Freedom 0, but it does sometimes because it had to start adoption with the industry. I think that Steam will slowly try to phase its own DRM out as the industry lets it.
You know... RMS, even if we don't take your freedom all the way to top-level software, we still appreciate running on a foundation of free software so that we understand and control what our computers do - because we can look at the data the free software structure can give us and make it tell us exactly what the non-free software is doing and... in a game, that's all I really want to be able to do. (Beyond just voting with my wallet)
The height of freedom is the freedom to choose not being free.
Now we can view software freedom as 5 essential freedoms:
Freedom -1: The freedom to run any software you wish.
Freedom 0: The freedom to run that software as you wish.
Freedom 1: The freedom to modify that software as you wish.
Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute that software as you wish.
Freedom 3: The freedom to redistribute your modifications as you wish.
Without "Freedom -1" all the other freedoms are void, and this is why I can't take him seriously if he says that commercial closed-source games shouldn't come to Linux. He's free to choose not to use that software, and we're free to enjoy the heck out of them while he sits in his wheelchair playing GTK+ Minesweeper. I mean, whatever. That's his freedom.
It's good that Steam is coming to Linux - because most of us don't actually care terribly much when it comes to freedom with games. I mean, they're games. If a game gives you freedom to modify the rules then the game breaks down as an international sport. You know, you can't start a football club and then refuse to play anything but a modified version of football. So when RMS goes about advocating free software games, I just don't really care terribly much. For getting work done? For applications? Sure, he's got a great point. For games? Meh.
Where it begins to cross over into problems for me with gaming is DRM. I mean it's one thing we can't modify the executable. That's fine. But when the executable denies me freedom 0, I get a little bit mad, and so do many others. However, Steam doesn't often tend to deny us Freedom 0, but it does sometimes because it had to start adoption with the industry. I think that Steam will slowly try to phase its own DRM out as the industry lets it.
You know... RMS, even if we don't take your freedom all the way to top-level software, we still appreciate running on a foundation of free software so that we understand and control what our computers do - because we can look at the data the free software structure can give us and make it tell us exactly what the non-free software is doing and... in a game, that's all I really want to be able to do. (Beyond just voting with my wallet)
Comment